Immigrant English - Code-Switching · Immigrant English-Code-Switching a presentation by ... Immigrant Generations Thesis ... Applied Linguistics.

Immigrant EnglishImmigrant English--

CodeCode--SwitchingSwitching

a presentation byElisa Netuschil, Natasa Markovic & David Woitoschek

OutlineOutline

• Introduction• Models• Grammar• Phonology• Sociolinguistics• Immigrant Generations Thesis

IntroductionIntroduction• Main topic of presentation:

Principles of code-switching of Polish immigrants living in the USA and Germany

• Bilinguals who regularly use two languages in their environment make use of code-switching

• Code-Switching:“the change back and forth between languages [styles], is frequent where there is bilingualism”

Generation Generation DiscrepanciesDiscrepancies

• There is a difference in code-switching: depending on which generation the immigrant is, the language is constructed differently…

Generation Generation DiscrepanciesDiscrepancies• First generation:

”inserts grammatically and phonologically modified lexical elements from the embedded language (EL = AmE or German) into the morphosyntactic frame of the matrix language (ML = Polish)”

• Second generation:does the same but without modifying pronunciation. “It also tends to insert ‘islands’ (morphemes or phrases) from the [embedded language] more than the first generation.”

FieldworkFieldwork StudyStudy• Morphosyntactical and phonological principles of Polish-

AmE and Polish-German CS in the areas of activity (domains)…• …home, family, work and education.

• Type of speech data obtained is spontaneous speech collected in the following locations:New York City, Clifton, New Jersey and Chicago as well as in Bielefeld.

• Speakers were selected from among first and second generation bilingual Polish immigrants, mainly family and friends.

FieldworkFieldwork StudyStudy• US group (19 speakers):

8 males, 11 females12 speakers (1st gen.), 7 speakers (2nd gen.)Age: from 4 - 63 years of age

• German Group (24 speakers):5 males, 19 females17 speakers (1st gen.), 7 speakers (2nd gen.) Age: from 19 - 30 years of age

InterInter--ClauseClause / / IntraIntra--ClauseClauseSwitchingSwitching

InterInter--SententialSentential(Inter(Inter--Clause Switching)Clause Switching)

• switching between languages from sentence to sentence (clause to clause) so that neither language can be identified as the ML

• The following example illustrates inter-clause switchingin the performance of a Spanish/English bilingual in New York city (Spanish is in italics):

“There was a guy, you know, que [that] he se montó [gotup]. He started playing with congas, you know, and se montó y empezó a brincar [got up and started to jump] and all that shit.“

(Winford 2003: 105)

IntraIntra--SententialSentential(Intra(Intra--Clause Switching)Clause Switching)

• momentary switches producing utterances with lexicon and morpho-syntax from the ML

• with insertions of single words/phrases from the EL

• Example:

IntraIntra--SententialSentential(Intra(Intra--Clause Switching)Clause Switching)

• IslandsThe following example can be provided in which the switch does not undergo ML integration, but remains an island from the EL:

ModelsModels

EquivalenceEquivalence--BasedBased ConstraintsConstraintsModelModel

• analyzes structural constraints on CS• discusses two or more interacting grammars• focuses on multi-word switches

Here we deal with “the juxtaposition of sentences or sentence fragments, each of which is internally consistent with the morphological and syntactic (and optionally phonological) rules of its lexifier language”(Poplack 1995: 200).

• no switch is allowed between a lexical stem and a bound morpheme (except in phonology)

• switches occur at points where the surface structure of the two languages coincide

MatrixMatrix--LanguageLanguage Frame (MLF) Frame (MLF) ModelModel

• analyzes switched constituents• postulates one dominant grammar in CS• focuses on single-morpheme EL switches

GrammarGrammar

ML ML HypothesisHypothesis• ML sets grammatical

frame for both the ML & EL constituents

• grammatical word and morpheme principlerequires all syntactically relevant grammatical wordsand morphemes to bederived from the ML

BlockingBlocking HypothesisHypothesisBlockingBlocking HypothesisHypothesis• “Switching is blocked where there is a mismatch

in constituency between the two languages”(Winford 2003: 129)

• Since the ordering (linear order) of nouns and adjectives in Spanish and English differs, the model predicts that no switch is possible at the boundary between them. This rules out caseslike “the casa white“ or “the blanca house“ as ungrammatical combinations in one or the otherlanguage.

EL Island EL Island TriggerTrigger HypothesisHypothesis• Whenever an EL morpheme appears which is not

permitted under either the ML Hypothesis or the BlockingHypothesis, the constituent containing it must becompleted as an island

• Blocking Hypothesis:ML blocks the appearance of any EL content morphemeswhich do not meet certain grammatical agreementconditions with ML counterparts

EL EL ImplicationalImplicational HierarchyHierarchyHypothesisHypothesis

• Optional EL islands occur in case theseconstituents are either idiomatic or peripheral to the main grammatical arguments of the sentence.As an example, the switch of an adverb can beprovided:

PhonologyPhonology

• In terms of phonological priciples switches aremodified a) phonologically or b) notas the examples below show.

SociolinguisticsSociolinguistics

• In terms of the sociolinguistic principles of CS, thedomain is the driving force in CS.Domain is an area of activity which is tied to a certain code. It motivates which language is usedfor which topic while talking to which interlocutor.

Motivation Motivation forfor CodeCode--SwitchingSwitching• Proficiency motivated

– people “are (or feel they are) insufficiently competent in a particular language to communicate fluently.“

• Domain-driven– there is “a complementary distribution of languages between

domains:“

area of work, education,... (language of power)VS.

area of solidarity, friends, family, … (domains of the otherlanguage)

older “immigrant generation may use the L1 in more domains[…] than the second or third generation in an immigrant family.“

Motivation Motivation forfor CodeCode--SwitchingSwitching• Context motivated

– “association of one language with formality and power and the other with informality of style and solidarity.“

often one language seems moresuitable to a speaker for telling jokes

• Identity-driven– “in the case of bilingual communities the variety of

language which people speak depends on their socialidentities“ (family, peer group, wider community, institutions, …)

(Gramley 2008: 318-320)

Immigrant Immigrant GenerationsGenerations ThesisThesis

• Differences in the morpho-syntactic and phonological nature of CS between thefirst and the second immigrantgenerations…

Immigrant Immigrant GenerationsGenerations ThesisThesis

• The first generation inserts grammatically and phonologically modified lexical elements fromthe EL into the morphosyntactic frame of the ML according to the MLF Model.

Immigrant Immigrant GenerationsGenerations ThesisThesis• Second generation

switches are made in thesame manner but withoutmodifying thepronunciation. Further, this generation tends to insert ‘islands‘incorporated from the EL more frequently but still according to the MLF Model.

LiteratureDorodzińska, K. (2007) Sprachwechsel in polnisch-deutschen

Gesprächen. Bachelor-Arbeit im Fach Linguistik. Bielefeld: Universität Bielefeld.

Gramley, S. and V. Gramley (eds.) (2008) Bielefeld Introduction to Applied Linguistics. A Course Book. Bielefeld: Aisthesis

Mas, M. (2009) “Grammatical and Phonological Outcomes of Bilingual Encounter: Principles of Code-Switching (CS) in English and German with a Polish Substrate,” In: S. Gramley and R. Schneider (eds.) Cultures in Process: Encounter and Experience. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, pp. 97-106.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993) Dueling Language: Grammatical Structure in Code-Switching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Poplack, S. and M. Meechan (1995) Patterns of Language Mixture: Nominal Structure in Wolof-French and fongbe-French Bilingual Discourse. In: L. Milroy and P. Muysken (eds.) One Speaker – Two Languages. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Code Switching. Cambridge: CUP, 199-132.

Winford, D. (2003) An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

ThankThank youyou forfor youryour attentionattention !!